I grew up in a small Indiana town where diversity is hard to come by. Throughout high school, I think I knowingly encountered one individual who was gay (and none who were atheists). My opinion on those who are gay was somewhat apathetic…it seemed odd, I wasn’t going to stand up and vocally defend…
In the age of the internet, physical paper books are a technology we need more, not less. In the 1950s, the novelist Herman Hesse wrote: “The more the need for entertainment and mainstream education can be met by new inventions, the more the book will recover its dignity and authority. We have not yet quite reached the point where young competitors, such as radio, cinema, etc, have taken over the functions from the book it can’t afford to lose.”
We have now reached that point. And here’s the function that the book – the paper book that doesn’t beep or flash or link or let you watch a thousand videos all at once – does for you that nothing else will. It gives you the capacity for deep, linear concentration. As Ulin puts it: “Reading is an act of resistance in a landscape of distraction…. It requires us to pace ourselves. It returns us to a reckoning with time. In the midst of a book, we have no choice but to be patient, to take each thing in its moment, to let the narrative prevail. We regain the world by withdrawing from it just a little, by stepping back from the noise.”
A book has a different relationship to time than a TV show or a Facebook update. It says that something was worth taking from the endless torrent of data and laying down on an object that will still look the same a hundred years from now. The French writer Jean-Phillipe De Tonnac says “the true function of books is to safeguard the things that forgetfulness constantly threatens to destroy.” It’s precisely because it is not immediate – because it doesn’t know what happened five minutes ago in Kazakhstan, or in Charlie Sheen’s apartment – that the book matters.
That’s why we need books, and why I believe they will survive. Because most humans have a desire to engage in deep thought and deep concentration. Those muscles are necessary for deep feeling and deep engagement. Most humans don’t just want mental snacks forever; they also want meals.
I’m not against e-books in principle – I’m tempted by the Kindle – but the more they become interactive and linked, the more they multitask and offer a hundred different functions, the less they will be able to preserve the aspects of the book that we actually need. An e-book reader that does a lot will not, in the end, be a book. The object needs to remain dull so the words – offering you the most electric sensation of all: insight into another person’s
I feel I learn a great deal from the internet. However, there are some things, particularly in math and physics, that only seem to be able to crawl into my head via some quiet time with book, pen, and paper.
Hello. I am the particular individual who had claimed that the Quantum realm can indeed support consciousness. Consciousness causes collapse ( as proposed by Wigner ). No one can prove this true but no one can prove this false. The whole nature of how and why the particles travel in such a manner is not fully understood. There is another topic called quantum mind. It goes into the subatomic particles of the nerve synapses and it can indeed support how the mind interacts with the brain at that level. I don't yet fully understand this concept ( not many people do ) , but I'd take a stand when I say there is proof in the quantum realm for the mind-body problem. Google all I have said to you and you will find many scholarly articles.
Hi, nice to talk to you. Please allow me to clear up a few things. As far as anyone can tell conscious observers have nothing to do with the collapse of the wavefunction. Wavefunctions collapse all the time without conscious observers. If they didn’t stars wouldn’t shine, chemistry wouldn’t work, etc. Truth being, most physicists don’t consider the wavefunction to be all that fundamental a thing anyway. If it is as you say that it can’t be proven true or false, then that is the definition of an unscientific question. Science hinges upon falsifiability.
How particles move the way they do is very well understood. Why they move the way they do…well, “why questions” while often appealing, are not always the most profitable questions to ask. There is what is called the “Why Regress” where (much like a young child) you can ask ‘why’ forever and eventually run out of answers.
I indeed Googled ‘quantum mind.’ Aside from one paper in Science, the rest is a load of junk science from crank journals. I don’t blame you for mistaking it for legitimate science. These people are hucksters who use quantum mechanics as a shield to keep their junk ideas safe from criticism because they know such a small population is able to recognize it for what it is.
Let me leave you with a few notes. In science we have to have testable claims. If someone wants to claim a close tie between quantum mechanics and the human brain (more than is already present in the known electro-chemical understanding of it) then they should devise some test to do so. It is not self-evident in the laws of quantum mechanics. It has not been previously demonstrated by experiment, particularly not in the double slit experiment, which I might add can run and collect data without anyone in the room to check on it.
If you want to learn more about quantum mechanics, I unfortunately must recommend going about it in the traditional way. Learn the prerequisite math, and pick up a copy of Griffiths’ Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Best of luck to you.
Among the many ramifications of quantum computation for apparently distant fields of study are its implications for the notion of mathematical proof. Performing any computation that provides a definite output is tantamount to proving that the observed output is one of the possible results of…
Maybe. But is it a given that interesting (or useful) proofs are long? I honestly don’t know what the trend is in some branches of physics and pure math.
She and her husband own a Christian counseling center (that receives state funds by the way) that attempts to “cure” homosexuals. Regarding homosexuals, her husband said:
Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels this or thinks this, doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to go down that road.
By all accounts, Bachmann shares the views of her husband. In 2004 she said:
This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay.
This is not a person with a reasonable worldview. This is a person whose moral system is based on the most barbarically literal interpretation of Bronze-Age mythology. She should not be allowed to have a say on what laws are passed in the most powerful country in the world. That she is being seriously considered as a presidential candidate is…dismaying and evidence of how vacuous our political process has become.
In marine environments they are ubiquitous, they define the ecology and even the topography. Gastropods, segmented worms, and aquatic arthropods all appear in abundance in fresh water. Why no fresh water anemones and corals?
“When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world’s richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don’t bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. They resemble the old Marxists, who refused to look around at actual experience. “I know it works in practice,” the old saw goes, “but does it work in theory?”—
Tampa Liberty is modeled after vacation Bible schools, which use fun, hands-on activities to deliver Christian messages.
One example at Liberty: Children will win hard, wrapped candies to use as currency for a store, symbolizing the gold standard. On the second day, the “banker” will issue paper money instead. Over time, students will realize their paper money buys less and less, while the candies retain their value.
“Some of the kids will fall for it,” Lukens said. “Others kids will wise up.”
Another example: Starting in an austere room where they are made to sit quietly, symbolizing Europe, the children will pass through an obstacle course to arrive at a brightly decorated party room (the New World).
Red-white-and-blue confetti will be thrown. But afterward the kids will have to clean up the confetti, learning that with freedom comes responsibility.
Still another example: Children will blow bubbles from a single container of soapy solution, and then pop each other’s bubbles with squirt guns in an arrangement that mimics socialism. They are to count how many bubbles they pop. Then they will work with individual bottles of solution and pop their own bubbles.
“What they will find out is that you can do a lot more with individual freedom,” Lukens said.
While the Liberty school is the first of its kind in the Tampa Bay area, Lukens said a group in Kentucky ran a similar school, and he learned from their ideas.
There is room for 40 students in the Tampa school and as of Monday, eight had signed up. The fee is $15.
“We’ve had classes for adults,” said Karen Jaroch, who chairs the Tampa 912 Project. “Now we want to introduce a younger generation to economics and history, but in a fun way.”
What kind of UnAmerican third grader is going to resist eating the candy currency?
I guess part of the appeal of goldbuggery is that you don’t have to dumb it down for a 3rd grade audience, it’s already there…
When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, “Have a ball, peas [sic]?” And I’m sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.
To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, “No! Looter!” right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.
Very strange and scary indoctrination. These children should be learning the power of honest inquiry and how to think for themselves.
I feel a bit like I may be beating an already dead horse, but I am like a man compelled.
To my knowledge, there is no verifiable link between quantum mechanics and what we call human consciousness. The structure of human consciousness appears no more connected to quantum mechanics than is the structure of sandstone. Assemblies of atoms that we call “conscious” do not appear to have a privileged place in the universe, nor does the universe itself seem to exhibit anything that might be called consciousness. If you would like to claim otherwise, I will gladly entertain that notion as long your claim is somehow testable/falsifiable. As I’ve mentioned before, claims posited as “self-evident” probably won’t get you very far.